Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 111
Entire Site: 8 & 1153
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-28-24 07:21 PM

Forum Links

Thread Information

Views
1,531
Replies
15
Rating
1
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
Oldschool41
06-01-13 11:17 AM
Last
Post
goodboy
08-17-13 09:37 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 367
Today: 0
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
 

Killing someone who is attempting to break into your house.

 

06-01-13 11:17 AM
Oldschool41 is Offline
| ID: 808134 | 663 Words

Oldschool41
Level: 83

POSTS: 1546/1799
POST EXP: 163693
LVL EXP: 5341829
CP: 977.6
VIZ: 17776

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I think this could be a good debate topic so I will give out some background information and a little scenario...

"You wake up in the middle of the night hearing what sounds like glass being broken. You get off your bed, check downstairs, and find that one of your windows is broken. As you attempt to find a phone to call police, you spot someone standing a couple of feet away from you. This stranger is blocking your path to get a phone or get out of the house. The stranger appears to be armed with something but you don't know what it is. You happen to have a loaded gun in your possession and your faced with 2 options. Run back into your bedroom and hide until the stranger leaves your house or shoot him with the gun. Just as you think about what to do, the stranger starts rushing toward you. Frightened, you pull your gun and shoot him. He is dead. As you turn on the light in your house you realize that the stranger had some China that he was attempting to steal until you caught him in the act. He had no weapon or gun on him. You pick up the phone and describe the person to the police. He is a 14 year old kid who you later learned was stealing items from houses and selling those items to pawn shops to use the money to pay for his mother's medical bills."

Question: Was it murder or justifiable homicide as you believed that the kid was going to harm you?

Now for the background. I'm sure all of you have heard or listen to the Tryvon Martin case and the issue with "Stand your Ground laws." If anyone doesn't know what Stand you Ground laws are, those are laws that allow you the right to defend yourself and use deadly force to stop a would be attacker without having to retreat first. The latter part that I mention is called the Retreat-First Doctrine which says that before anyone can use force to repel a would be attacker, they must first try to escape or retreat from the attack. If the person can't escape from the attacker, then they can use force to repel the attacker.

Now in the little instance that I made up, this event took place in a home. This is also called the "Castle Doctrine" which states that a person can use force even deadly force to repel a would be robber if the robber is attempting to break into his property or house (some states say that the castle doctrine can be used in mobile homes and businesses.) This "Castle Doctrine" is what I wish for this thread to be about.

Now most states have "Stand your Ground Laws" and even more have "Castle Doctrine Laws". Some states do require that you must have the ability to retreat first before you can use force to repel the attack. Some states require that you use only "reasonable amount of force" to repel the attack, those deadly force is not allowed. A minority of states don't have either "Stand your Ground Laws" or "Castle Doctrine Laws".

So here is my questions to the Vizzed community.

1. In the scenario above so you be arrested for murdering that 14 year old or is your murder justifiable since you believed that the 14 year old was going to harm you and you had no ability to escape from the 14 year old robber.

2. Should a person have the right to use force to repel a would be attacker and if so what amount of force (reasonable or deadly)?

3. Should a person have the right to use deadly force to stop a would be attacker from trying to enter your house?

4. Should a person have the duty to retreat or run away from the attacker before they can use force to repel the attacker?
I think this could be a good debate topic so I will give out some background information and a little scenario...

"You wake up in the middle of the night hearing what sounds like glass being broken. You get off your bed, check downstairs, and find that one of your windows is broken. As you attempt to find a phone to call police, you spot someone standing a couple of feet away from you. This stranger is blocking your path to get a phone or get out of the house. The stranger appears to be armed with something but you don't know what it is. You happen to have a loaded gun in your possession and your faced with 2 options. Run back into your bedroom and hide until the stranger leaves your house or shoot him with the gun. Just as you think about what to do, the stranger starts rushing toward you. Frightened, you pull your gun and shoot him. He is dead. As you turn on the light in your house you realize that the stranger had some China that he was attempting to steal until you caught him in the act. He had no weapon or gun on him. You pick up the phone and describe the person to the police. He is a 14 year old kid who you later learned was stealing items from houses and selling those items to pawn shops to use the money to pay for his mother's medical bills."

Question: Was it murder or justifiable homicide as you believed that the kid was going to harm you?

Now for the background. I'm sure all of you have heard or listen to the Tryvon Martin case and the issue with "Stand your Ground laws." If anyone doesn't know what Stand you Ground laws are, those are laws that allow you the right to defend yourself and use deadly force to stop a would be attacker without having to retreat first. The latter part that I mention is called the Retreat-First Doctrine which says that before anyone can use force to repel a would be attacker, they must first try to escape or retreat from the attack. If the person can't escape from the attacker, then they can use force to repel the attacker.

Now in the little instance that I made up, this event took place in a home. This is also called the "Castle Doctrine" which states that a person can use force even deadly force to repel a would be robber if the robber is attempting to break into his property or house (some states say that the castle doctrine can be used in mobile homes and businesses.) This "Castle Doctrine" is what I wish for this thread to be about.

Now most states have "Stand your Ground Laws" and even more have "Castle Doctrine Laws". Some states do require that you must have the ability to retreat first before you can use force to repel the attack. Some states require that you use only "reasonable amount of force" to repel the attack, those deadly force is not allowed. A minority of states don't have either "Stand your Ground Laws" or "Castle Doctrine Laws".

So here is my questions to the Vizzed community.

1. In the scenario above so you be arrested for murdering that 14 year old or is your murder justifiable since you believed that the 14 year old was going to harm you and you had no ability to escape from the 14 year old robber.

2. Should a person have the right to use force to repel a would be attacker and if so what amount of force (reasonable or deadly)?

3. Should a person have the right to use deadly force to stop a would be attacker from trying to enter your house?

4. Should a person have the duty to retreat or run away from the attacker before they can use force to repel the attacker?
Trusted Member
A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-27-10
Last Post: 2774 days
Last Active: 2334 days

06-01-13 01:33 PM
spikex is Offline
| ID: 808241 | 119 Words

spikex
Level: 10

POSTS: 8/14
POST EXP: 1298
LVL EXP: 3298
CP: 134.1
VIZ: 15091

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Here in Canada, you can still be charged with manslaughter under these situations. Now with that being said, if anyone breaks into my house while my wife and daughter are there, then I will do anything in my power to eliminate that threat, laws be damned. I'd much rather spend 8 years in prison for protecting my family then live the rest of my life knowing that my daughter died because of my inaction.
If I was alone, I'd attempt to allow the robber to leave of his own accord without confrontation. I have no desire to live my life with killing someone on my conscience and material possessions are not worth the risk, except maybe my transformers collection.
Here in Canada, you can still be charged with manslaughter under these situations. Now with that being said, if anyone breaks into my house while my wife and daughter are there, then I will do anything in my power to eliminate that threat, laws be damned. I'd much rather spend 8 years in prison for protecting my family then live the rest of my life knowing that my daughter died because of my inaction.
If I was alone, I'd attempt to allow the robber to leave of his own accord without confrontation. I have no desire to live my life with killing someone on my conscience and material possessions are not worth the risk, except maybe my transformers collection.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-21-13
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Last Post: 3787 days
Last Active: 2878 days

06-03-13 04:09 PM
supercool22 is Offline
| ID: 809861 | 18 Words

supercool22
Level: 125


POSTS: 1930/4933
POST EXP: 182037
LVL EXP: 22282502
CP: 77732.2
VIZ: 4582663

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I  would shot the stranger if the situation gets serious. But you might charge for killing the stranger. 
I  would shot the stranger if the situation gets serious. But you might charge for killing the stranger. 
Global Moderator
PC/Steam Manager, Content Adder, Activities Manager
Winter 2024 TDV Winner


Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Registered: 11-30-12
Last Post: 18 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

06-03-13 06:35 PM
Barathemos is Offline
| ID: 809954 | 25 Words

Barathemos
Level: 205


POSTS: 1861/15634
POST EXP: 668905
LVL EXP: 124509251
CP: 46524.6
VIZ: 889961

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
This is fine to me. If you are getting robbed, you will do this in self defense. It is blocking an illegal thing with another.
This is fine to me. If you are getting robbed, you will do this in self defense. It is blocking an illegal thing with another.
Local Moderator
Minecraft Admin

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-17-13
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Last Post: 80 days
Last Active: 3 days

06-03-13 07:31 PM
thenumberone is Offline
| ID: 810007 | 25 Words

thenumberone
Level: 143


POSTS: 5363/6365
POST EXP: 365694
LVL EXP: 35017430
CP: 4946.4
VIZ: 329756

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
You should only be able to use lethal force if they ignore a warning.
Beyond that id warrant violence but not with intent to kill.
You should only be able to use lethal force if they ignore a warning.
Beyond that id warrant violence but not with intent to kill.
Vizzed Elite
Bleeding Heart Liberal


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-22-11
Last Post: 3382 days
Last Active: 3382 days

06-04-13 05:50 AM
ant123ant is Offline
| ID: 810220 | 139 Words

ant123ant
Level: 55


POSTS: 443/696
POST EXP: 37353
LVL EXP: 1262235
CP: 2403.3
VIZ: 143454

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I think that you should not be able to use lethal force unless you are yourself meet with lethal force which is made clear, in the situation mentioned the person could have fired a warning shot at the floor which would have startled the intruder, you could then tell them to put everything down or you will shoot them (if they don't a shot in the arm or feet would make your intentions clear), I know it would be a difficult shot but a second shot could be taken quickly, you could then ask why or phone the police. Regardless of which is chosen the situation is resolved without any death. Also if the intruder has left your property you are no longer acting in self defence you, you would be acting with vengeance which makes the act unjustified.
I think that you should not be able to use lethal force unless you are yourself meet with lethal force which is made clear, in the situation mentioned the person could have fired a warning shot at the floor which would have startled the intruder, you could then tell them to put everything down or you will shoot them (if they don't a shot in the arm or feet would make your intentions clear), I know it would be a difficult shot but a second shot could be taken quickly, you could then ask why or phone the police. Regardless of which is chosen the situation is resolved without any death. Also if the intruder has left your property you are no longer acting in self defence you, you would be acting with vengeance which makes the act unjustified.
Member
ninja in training


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-21-11
Location: United kindom
Last Post: 1223 days
Last Active: 1223 days

06-05-13 02:27 PM
IgorBird122 is Offline
| ID: 811223 | 26 Words

IgorBird122
The_IB122
Level: 140


POSTS: 542/6414
POST EXP: 526201
LVL EXP: 32882819
CP: 40905.1
VIZ: 779500

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
If it's someone breaking into the house, you should be able to kill or injure them because it's self-defense and you shouldn't get charged for it.
If it's someone breaking into the house, you should be able to kill or injure them because it's self-defense and you shouldn't get charged for it.
Vizzed Elite
The Shadow King


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-07-13
Location: The Big Easy
Last Post: 1450 days
Last Active: 1436 days

06-05-13 07:56 PM
SacredShadow is Offline
| ID: 811427 | 153 Words

SacredShadow
Razor-987
Level: 152


POSTS: 764/7753
POST EXP: 960743
LVL EXP: 43665046
CP: 34604.9
VIZ: 985840

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
If someone breaks into your house armed or with intent on killing or destroying then yes you are only doing out of self defense and I think that is what most people would do in a situation like that. I mean I would feel very bad about later finding out that I shot a 14 year old kid and I would probably get upset later, but if it is dark then I would have never known and I thought that it was a full grown man charging at me then I would have had no other choice but to shoot him. I also think that if he was doing it in search of money for medical bills that he could try to get it in some other way like a job or doing services or something like that. But yes given the circumstances I would end up doing it out of self defense.
If someone breaks into your house armed or with intent on killing or destroying then yes you are only doing out of self defense and I think that is what most people would do in a situation like that. I mean I would feel very bad about later finding out that I shot a 14 year old kid and I would probably get upset later, but if it is dark then I would have never known and I thought that it was a full grown man charging at me then I would have had no other choice but to shoot him. I also think that if he was doing it in search of money for medical bills that he could try to get it in some other way like a job or doing services or something like that. But yes given the circumstances I would end up doing it out of self defense.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-14-13
Last Post: 376 days
Last Active: 343 days

06-05-13 08:37 PM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 811474 | 431 Words

rcarter2
Level: 161


POSTS: 6383/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53459277
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508

Likes: 2  Dislikes: 0
One thing about that Tryvon case is that the shooter called the police department to report suspicious activity. The operator specifically told him to not go outside and do not confront the kid. The man ignored the directions given to him, went outside with a gun, and confronted the kid. He was completely in the wrong here.

In your scenario, you said the lights were off so it was impossible to see exactly what was completely going on or who the intruder was. In your case, you had close to no real vision, the attacker charged, and he had a potential weapon. At that point, you are fully within your right to act. Thing is, in that moment, the average person cannot process 'to avoid breaking any laws, I must shoot at the leg or arm to avoid killing this person". That takes very specific and special training to be able to have that much control in such a quick and dangerous event. Ideally, yes, you should defend to injure, not kill unless you are certain the person will kill you and is fully capable of easily doing so (like having a him/herself). But in your scenario, it is too much of a gamble to assume the person won't kill you and they don't have a deadly weapon. Being dark, you can't exactly be accurate with your aim. 

Now, if you go overkill with it, such as shooting repeated times after the attacker is down and of no harm (even if it is just adrenaline), that is a line that. 

There are a lot of variables here that really have to be right for the kill to be justified. In your specific conditions, the primary one being unable to see, I think it is legally justified. Now on the other hand, you said you could see just well enough to know they had something in their hand. With that, you should be able to tell their relative size and frame. Given the kid is 14 years old, he would have to be pretty large for his age to be mistaken as an adult. It is definitely not a black and white area.

For everyone who simply said that if someone breaks into your house, you have the right to take lethal force, I believe you are wrong. As far as legality goes, it should only be excusable if you have every reason to believe that they are going to attack with the potential intention to kill. Just the simple act of breaking in does not automatically make shooting someone 'self defense'. 
One thing about that Tryvon case is that the shooter called the police department to report suspicious activity. The operator specifically told him to not go outside and do not confront the kid. The man ignored the directions given to him, went outside with a gun, and confronted the kid. He was completely in the wrong here.

In your scenario, you said the lights were off so it was impossible to see exactly what was completely going on or who the intruder was. In your case, you had close to no real vision, the attacker charged, and he had a potential weapon. At that point, you are fully within your right to act. Thing is, in that moment, the average person cannot process 'to avoid breaking any laws, I must shoot at the leg or arm to avoid killing this person". That takes very specific and special training to be able to have that much control in such a quick and dangerous event. Ideally, yes, you should defend to injure, not kill unless you are certain the person will kill you and is fully capable of easily doing so (like having a him/herself). But in your scenario, it is too much of a gamble to assume the person won't kill you and they don't have a deadly weapon. Being dark, you can't exactly be accurate with your aim. 

Now, if you go overkill with it, such as shooting repeated times after the attacker is down and of no harm (even if it is just adrenaline), that is a line that. 

There are a lot of variables here that really have to be right for the kill to be justified. In your specific conditions, the primary one being unable to see, I think it is legally justified. Now on the other hand, you said you could see just well enough to know they had something in their hand. With that, you should be able to tell their relative size and frame. Given the kid is 14 years old, he would have to be pretty large for his age to be mistaken as an adult. It is definitely not a black and white area.

For everyone who simply said that if someone breaks into your house, you have the right to take lethal force, I believe you are wrong. As far as legality goes, it should only be excusable if you have every reason to believe that they are going to attack with the potential intention to kill. Just the simple act of breaking in does not automatically make shooting someone 'self defense'. 
Vizzed Elite
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2439 days
Last Active: 747 days

Post Rating: 2   Liked By: Guldan, Light Knight,

06-05-13 10:46 PM
Oldschool41 is Offline
| ID: 811572 | 282 Words

Oldschool41
Level: 83

POSTS: 1547/1799
POST EXP: 163693
LVL EXP: 5341829
CP: 977.6
VIZ: 17776

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0

rcarter2 : Very content specific post and very well organized.

To your point on the overkill, you are correct that if you shoot them repeatedly once the attacker is incapacitated, then you went over the "self-defense" claim and into murder.

To your point on lethal force on just someone breaking into your house, you are right again as the "self-defense" claim is an excusable defense and you can't claim "self-defense" if the person has yet to break into your house or he hasn't fully completed the act of breaking into the house. Not to mention there are some other things to be considered to go along with "self-defense", but for the topic of the thread I won't post the factors unless someone truly wants it or for a rebuttal to a person's argument.

I'm glad to see that most people who replied are assuming that the 14 year old is as large as an adult. I neglected to mention that in my scenario but I think most people know where I'm going.

ant123ant : A good point you mentioned about once the felon leaves your property, you can't claim self-defense. However the "fleeing felon rule" might apply to that as well, but given my scenario and to remain on topic; I don't think we need to worry about this rule.

To your point about a second shot, like I said in rcarter's post, if you managed to injure the robber in such a way that he can't respond back to you with force, then a second shot might be overkill if he dies from that second shot (shot in the head or he bleeds out); and you could be on the hook for murder.


rcarter2 : Very content specific post and very well organized.

To your point on the overkill, you are correct that if you shoot them repeatedly once the attacker is incapacitated, then you went over the "self-defense" claim and into murder.

To your point on lethal force on just someone breaking into your house, you are right again as the "self-defense" claim is an excusable defense and you can't claim "self-defense" if the person has yet to break into your house or he hasn't fully completed the act of breaking into the house. Not to mention there are some other things to be considered to go along with "self-defense", but for the topic of the thread I won't post the factors unless someone truly wants it or for a rebuttal to a person's argument.

I'm glad to see that most people who replied are assuming that the 14 year old is as large as an adult. I neglected to mention that in my scenario but I think most people know where I'm going.

ant123ant : A good point you mentioned about once the felon leaves your property, you can't claim self-defense. However the "fleeing felon rule" might apply to that as well, but given my scenario and to remain on topic; I don't think we need to worry about this rule.

To your point about a second shot, like I said in rcarter's post, if you managed to injure the robber in such a way that he can't respond back to you with force, then a second shot might be overkill if he dies from that second shot (shot in the head or he bleeds out); and you could be on the hook for murder.

Trusted Member
A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-27-10
Last Post: 2774 days
Last Active: 2334 days

06-10-13 03:44 PM
chair of doom is Offline
| ID: 814624 | 105 Words

chair of doom
Level: 14

POSTS: 1/32
POST EXP: 2750
LVL EXP: 11370
CP: 495.8
VIZ: 8168

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 1
I think that you should kill the person if they are breaking into your house because they broke in and are probably trying to do harm to you by either stealing something or ruining your computer or destroy your jewellery or even deleting your vi zed account on your computer
its best to take action before asking questions on why he would break in the first place because he would never reply to you in the first place!
so in conclusion, I believe that you should take action and knock the guy who broke into your house. If necessary, you may kill him
I think that you should kill the person if they are breaking into your house because they broke in and are probably trying to do harm to you by either stealing something or ruining your computer or destroy your jewellery or even deleting your vi zed account on your computer
its best to take action before asking questions on why he would break in the first place because he would never reply to you in the first place!
so in conclusion, I believe that you should take action and knock the guy who broke into your house. If necessary, you may kill him
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-08-13
Last Post: 3583 days
Last Active: 2843 days

08-03-13 09:37 PM
xandermartin98 is Offline
| ID: 861003 | 57 Words

xandermartin98
Level: 32


POSTS: 127/210
POST EXP: 17806
LVL EXP: 191458
CP: 231.8
VIZ: 6221

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I suppose it depends, but if you have a way to knock em' out instead, just use that instead of killing them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQVaupPS80
And, most importantly, be sure to tell someone you trust, like your parents, your teacher, a police officer...It's your home. No one has the right to break in if you don't want them to.
I suppose it depends, but if you have a way to knock em' out instead, just use that instead of killing them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQVaupPS80
And, most importantly, be sure to tell someone you trust, like your parents, your teacher, a police officer...It's your home. No one has the right to break in if you don't want them to.
Member
Geeky Outcast Dan


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-27-13
Location: Riverton, New Jersey
Last Post: 3570 days
Last Active: 3325 days

(edited by xandermartin98 on 08-03-13 09:41 PM)    

08-06-13 09:45 AM
Light Knight is Offline
| ID: 862249 | 170 Words

Light Knight
Davideo3.14
Level: 121


POSTS: 1707/3819
POST EXP: 276083
LVL EXP: 19816665
CP: 11293.5
VIZ: 1051184

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
rcarter2 : Best reply in the thread yet.

If someone charges at you in the dark, there's no way to know if you can outrun them, and you shoot them and happen to hit a vital area of the body;  you were not "defending you castle", but defending yourself (and maybe family) against a very real threat, your only choice was to either shoot, or hope he didn't have a knife.

Now if you had seen him, and shot him without him seeing you or threatening you directly, that, in my opinion, is wrong. If you have a gun, it's fine to warn him to get out, and then shoot him if he doesn't listen.

Other things matter too, IMO. For example, did you only shoot once? Or did you empty the magazine in his chest? Did you obey the instructions given to you be the 911 operator? Was the intruder on the way out when you shot?

In your story, my opinion is, no, you were not in the wrong.
rcarter2 : Best reply in the thread yet.

If someone charges at you in the dark, there's no way to know if you can outrun them, and you shoot them and happen to hit a vital area of the body;  you were not "defending you castle", but defending yourself (and maybe family) against a very real threat, your only choice was to either shoot, or hope he didn't have a knife.

Now if you had seen him, and shot him without him seeing you or threatening you directly, that, in my opinion, is wrong. If you have a gun, it's fine to warn him to get out, and then shoot him if he doesn't listen.

Other things matter too, IMO. For example, did you only shoot once? Or did you empty the magazine in his chest? Did you obey the instructions given to you be the 911 operator? Was the intruder on the way out when you shot?

In your story, my opinion is, no, you were not in the wrong.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Loyal Knight of Vizzed


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-08-04
Location: The Internet
Last Post: 65 days
Last Active: 28 days

08-09-13 11:14 AM
ender44 is Offline
| ID: 863657 | 398 Words

ender44
Level: 82


POSTS: 1673/1847
POST EXP: 113304
LVL EXP: 5180894
CP: 7599.7
VIZ: 54387

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
This is a really difficult thing to talk about.

Because you can put up a big talk about how the homeowner should have retreated and given warnings, but when you are in your house, and when you have people in there you have to protect, then you aren't thinking about that, you are thinking about how to get that guy out of your house.

As for warnings, if you come out of nowhere and shoot him before he knows you're there, I don't think that is justifiable. If he charges you, and you have reason to believe that he might harm you, then fine, shoot as you please, it doesn't matter if he is fourteen or twenty-six, a weapon is a weapon. Yes, a grown-man could most likely handle a fourteen year old with a knife, but if the kid gets a stab?in before you can process the situation, then you are at a disadvantage, and he can then finish you off while you are injured.

Now, let's say you shoot him, and sadly, he dies. Then you must call the cops as soon as you can and let them know exactly what happened, if you don't, if you try to hide what happened, then I would put you in jail. If you shoot him, nick him in the back, and he goes down, then search him, take away any weapons, then call the cops. If you finish him off, or shoot him again and kill him just from pure adrenaline or anger, then I call that murder.

I personally believe that before you shoot, you must give a warning to let the robber know that they either leave or get shot.

Now, given my opinions, lets look at the story. The stranger is in your house, and he is blocking your phone, that means there isn't a way for you to call the cops, you have to run or defend yourself. Then, the stranger is running towards you, with a weapon, you have cause to believe that he will kill you, and perhaps harm your family. You shoot, only once, and kill him, then you immediately call the cops and tell them what happened. I don't think that was murder. I think the man in the story had every right to do what he did.

rcarter2 : I agree with light knight, that was very well done.
This is a really difficult thing to talk about.

Because you can put up a big talk about how the homeowner should have retreated and given warnings, but when you are in your house, and when you have people in there you have to protect, then you aren't thinking about that, you are thinking about how to get that guy out of your house.

As for warnings, if you come out of nowhere and shoot him before he knows you're there, I don't think that is justifiable. If he charges you, and you have reason to believe that he might harm you, then fine, shoot as you please, it doesn't matter if he is fourteen or twenty-six, a weapon is a weapon. Yes, a grown-man could most likely handle a fourteen year old with a knife, but if the kid gets a stab?in before you can process the situation, then you are at a disadvantage, and he can then finish you off while you are injured.

Now, let's say you shoot him, and sadly, he dies. Then you must call the cops as soon as you can and let them know exactly what happened, if you don't, if you try to hide what happened, then I would put you in jail. If you shoot him, nick him in the back, and he goes down, then search him, take away any weapons, then call the cops. If you finish him off, or shoot him again and kill him just from pure adrenaline or anger, then I call that murder.

I personally believe that before you shoot, you must give a warning to let the robber know that they either leave or get shot.

Now, given my opinions, lets look at the story. The stranger is in your house, and he is blocking your phone, that means there isn't a way for you to call the cops, you have to run or defend yourself. Then, the stranger is running towards you, with a weapon, you have cause to believe that he will kill you, and perhaps harm your family. You shoot, only once, and kill him, then you immediately call the cops and tell them what happened. I don't think that was murder. I think the man in the story had every right to do what he did.

rcarter2 : I agree with light knight, that was very well done.
Vizzed Elite
Ender44 didnt get Lucky777 syndrome on 2/7/13!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-29-12
Location: If you know, please tell me. I'm very confused
Last Post: 2777 days
Last Active: 77 days

(edited by ender44 on 08-09-13 02:06 PM)    

08-09-13 11:28 AM
Oldschool41 is Offline
| ID: 863667 | 100 Words

Oldschool41
Level: 83

POSTS: 1638/1799
POST EXP: 163693
LVL EXP: 5341829
CP: 977.6
VIZ: 17776

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0

ender44 : Good post. However I should point out that if the person shoots him again out of pure adrenaline or anger; then that would be a "heat of passion" killing and that would be manslaughter over murder (as murder requires mens rea or mental thought and an act caused by pure adrenaline or anger causes a person to not think rationally or clearly). Not of course the state could try to convict him for murder, but most likely the jury will find him not guilty as the state can't prove the suspects mental state when he "finished off" the robber.

ender44 : Good post. However I should point out that if the person shoots him again out of pure adrenaline or anger; then that would be a "heat of passion" killing and that would be manslaughter over murder (as murder requires mens rea or mental thought and an act caused by pure adrenaline or anger causes a person to not think rationally or clearly). Not of course the state could try to convict him for murder, but most likely the jury will find him not guilty as the state can't prove the suspects mental state when he "finished off" the robber.
Trusted Member
A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-27-10
Last Post: 2774 days
Last Active: 2334 days

08-17-13 09:37 PM
goodboy is Offline
| ID: 868790 | 137 Words

goodboy
¯_(?)_/¯
Level: 86


POSTS: 297/2102
POST EXP: 124962
LVL EXP: 6062924
CP: 2829.4
VIZ: 123816

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Now, now. Hold on.

Technically, you shouldn't be allowed to slaughter the person without warning him, ID'ing him, or attempting to do anything of the sort. If he heeds no warning, and comes at you with a potential weapon, you can fight back, legally or not. The court will most likely find you not guilty if it was truly justified. Though, you shouldn't kill with intent. Try to injure him to the point of helplessness. Murder would make the situation worse. I realize involuntary manslaughter is illegal, but it still has some ground to tread on and a jury would understand.

But, as I said, try to render him helpless. Don't murder. Or don't overkill. Try to shoot him in the leg or something, and knock him helpless, and let authorities handle the rest. Murder is pointless.
Now, now. Hold on.

Technically, you shouldn't be allowed to slaughter the person without warning him, ID'ing him, or attempting to do anything of the sort. If he heeds no warning, and comes at you with a potential weapon, you can fight back, legally or not. The court will most likely find you not guilty if it was truly justified. Though, you shouldn't kill with intent. Try to injure him to the point of helplessness. Murder would make the situation worse. I realize involuntary manslaughter is illegal, but it still has some ground to tread on and a jury would understand.

But, as I said, try to render him helpless. Don't murder. Or don't overkill. Try to shoot him in the leg or something, and knock him helpless, and let authorities handle the rest. Murder is pointless.
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-27-13
Location: Your backyard.
Last Post: 2588 days
Last Active: 2509 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×